Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] mm: memory_hotplug: drop memoryless node from fallback lists

Qi Zheng
2023-10-23T03:17:35Z

On 2023/10/23 11:10, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Ying,
>>
>> On 2023/10/23 09:18, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>> Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hi Ying,
>>>>
>>>> On 2023/10/20 15:05, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>> Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In offline_pages(), if a node becomes memoryless, we
>>>>>> will clear its N_MEMORY state by calling node_states_clear_node().
>>>>>> But we do this after rebuilding the zonelists by calling
>>>>>> build_all_zonelists(), which will cause this memoryless node to
>>>>>> still be in the fallback list of other nodes.
>>>>> For fallback list, do you mean pgdat->node_zonelists[]? If so, in
>>>>> build_all_zonelists
>>>>> __build_all_zonelists
>>>>> build_zonelists
>>>>> build_zonelists_in_node_order
>>>>> build_zonerefs_node
>>>>> populated_zone() will be checked before adding zone into zonelist.
>>>>> So, IIUC, we will not try to allocate from the memory less node.
>>>>
>>>> Normally yes, but if it is the weird topology mentioned in [1], it's
>>>> possible to allocate memory from it, it is a memoryless node, but it
>>>> also has memory.
>>>>
>>>> In addition to the above case, I think it's reasonable to remove
>>>> memory less node from node_order[] in advance. In this way it will
>>>> not to be traversed in build_zonelists_in_node_order().
>>>>
>>>> [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230212110305.93670-1-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com/
>>> Got it! Thank you for information. I think that it may be good to
>>> include this in the patch description to avoid potential confusing in
>>> the future.
>>
>> OK, maybe the commit message can be changed to the following:
>>
>> ```
>> In offline_pages(), if a node becomes memoryless, we
>> will clear its N_MEMORY state by calling node_states_clear_node().
>> But we do this after rebuilding the zonelists by calling
>> build_all_zonelists(), which will cause this memoryless node to
>> still be in the fallback nodes (node_order[]) of other nodes.
>>
>> To drop memoryless nodes from fallback nodes in this case, just
>> call node_states_clear_node() before calling build_all_zonelists().
>>
>> In this way, we will not try to allocate pages from memoryless
>> node0, then the panic mentioned in [1] will also be fixed. Even though
>> this problem has been solved by dropping the NODE_MIN_SIZE constrain
>> in x86 [2], it would be better to fix it in the core MM as well.
>>
>> [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230212110305.93670-1-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com/
>> [2]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231017062215.171670-1-rppt@kernel.org/
>>
>> ```

Hi Andrew, can you help modify the commit message to this? :)

Thanks,
Qi

>
> This is helpful. Thanks!
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
>
>> Thanks,
>> Qi
>>
>>> --
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Huang, Ying
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Qi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>> Huang, Ying
>>>>>
>>>>>> This will incur
>>>>>> some runtime overhead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To drop memoryless node from fallback lists in this case, just
>>>>>> call node_states_clear_node() before calling build_all_zonelists().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
>>>>>> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> --
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>> Huang, Ying